Category Archives: John O’Sullivan

As Canada becomes the first major nation to cut and run from the UN’s global warming scam a prominent environmentalist now plunges another deadly dagger into the soft underbelly of junk climate science.

Geologist and radio and TV broadcaster Leighton Steward succinctly points to eight crucial unanswered questions to slay the mythical climate dragon. The questions Steward poses should now be thrust to the fore as nations scramble for excuses to pull the plug on the Kyoto Protocol’s life support after the abject failure of the UN’s COP17 talks in Durban.

It’s these eight glaring anomalies in the science that Peter Kent,Canada’s environment minister, can add to those 14 billion other reasons (those dollars saved in unpaid UN penalties) why his nation was right to bail out of the biggest scam in history.

Canada, the new climate realist at the party, joins Japan and Russia in steadfastly refusing any new Kyoto-style climate commitments. The CO2-limiting treaty, signed by various world governments in 1997 expires in December 2012 with little if any prospect of a replacement in sight before 2020. But joy of joys, Kyoto is increasingly exposed for being premised on the discredited hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would precipitate runaway global warming.

Inconvenient Questions Routinely Dodged by Alarmist Advocates

In his analysis ‘The climate-change con artists’ for WorldNetDaily (December 9, 2011) Steward lists his eight straightforward key questions that climate science dodged for decades and which must be addressed before cash-strapped governments ever again vote to fatten UN coffers:

Why can’t warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?

Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?

Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?

Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?

Why did many of Earth’s major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man’s CO2 emissions?

Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth’s CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?

Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?

Why are correlations of Earth’s temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth’s temperature with CO2 levels?

Why are such inconvenient yet crucial questions still left unanswered? What turns mere incompetence into wilful fraud is that these ‘researchers’ were also intentionally ignoring all evidence that disproved their hypothesis.

Governments and voters may now fairly infer that for the last 30 years a clique of government climate scientists in English-speaking nations deliberately wasted millions toying with unfeasible toy models hoping (but failing) to concoct a causal link between carbon and climate.

Two Degrees Celsius Drop in Temperatures ‘Plucked out of Thin Air’

The evidence for fraud gets more compelling when we add to the mix the leaked Climategate 2.0 emails of November 2011. Our conscientious friendly whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, England (UEA) shows us that government climatologists secretly concede the science to back Kyoto is paper-thin.

A main requirement is that the treaty demands a two degree Celsiusdrop in global temperatures. But top UEA climate scientist, Professor Jones, admits that no scientific basis was ever established for the “2 degrees Celsius” benchmark. Jones admits:

“The 2 deg C limit is talked about by a lot within Europe. It is never defined though what it means…. I know you don’t know the answer, but I don’t either! I think it is plucked out of thin air.”

[Phil Jones email to C. Kremer; Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:40 PM]

Thus opinion trumps hard evidence in the topsy-turvy world of climate science as further substantiated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Buried deep in the 2007 IPCC Report is the disturbing fact that climatologists admit to “low” or “very low” understanding of 13 of the 15 factors that drive climate. [1.]

No wonder Professor Jones chose to break the law and refuse to honor Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests from independent researchers. There was so little evidence to back all those doomsaying climate claims and Jones didn’t want to be caught giving policymakers mere opinions (dressed as ‘fact’). He and his co-conspirators needed to keep milking that research cash cow. All the while, gleeful that their scientists were giving them ammunition to concoct apocalyptic scenarios to scare the public into paying ever higher taxes, the politicians went along with the scam. Just follow the money, as they say.

As Icecap reports, Penn State University, a hub of climate alarm, alone acquired $470,000,000 in federal grants and contracts between 2010 and 2011. After the Sandusky child sex scandal the world now sees just how Penn State values profit over principle.

The US government alone spent over $106 billion on climate research money between 2003 and 2010. Such munificence can buy a lot of ‘consensus’ in university laboratories. Opinionated and ill-informed faux climate science was thus used to justify a $100-billion-a-year “climate change reparation and mitigation” fund for poor nations.

That hotchpotch treaty, designed to severely restrict human emissions of an essential life-giving gas (CO2), offered nothing for the planet while impoverishing humanity by crippling industrial development.

Canada Saves Taxpayer Billions in Moment of Climate Realism

In short, Kyoto was never about climate change but more probably a nefarious UN vehicle for global population control and wealth redistribution – a veritable gravy train for corrupt and opinionated ideologues. No wonder Peter Kent,Canada’s environment minister, denounced Kyoto as one of Canada’s “biggest” policy errors. At the earliest opportunity (Monday 12, December 2011) the Canadian government sensibly invoked its legal rights and withdrew from the Kyoto agreement.

By bailing out of the UN’s climate Ponzi scheme Canada will now save itself having to pay $US14 billion ($A13.94 billion) in needless penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada reacted to the news with the expected doomsayer hyperbole: “The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto.”

Yet Canada’s environment minister aptly summed up the lunacy of the extreme cost of climate legislation, as it would be:

“the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.”

Thus by consideration of the aforesaid paucity of hard evidence and Leighton Steward’s Eight Unanswered Questions the Kyoto Protocol deserves to be tossed into the trash can of history. Rest assured, Canada will be just the first of a glut of nations abandoning pointless and moribund UN ‘emissions targets’ that do more harm than good.

Taxpayers have a right to demand this secretive, corrupt and wasteful culture in government science be swept away. It urgently needs replacing with a new era of principled, open and objective science.

The Canadian professor holds strong views on this topic, having written frequent op-eds, a book, journal articles and think-tank reports. He concludes, “The public has acquired a dim view of the credibility of climate science, and based on what I have seen, the public is right.”

The latest paper asks the reader to imagine that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had created an economics version of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). McKitrick sets up the scenario that economists, like climate scientists might proceed to issue an Assessment Report and Summary for Policymakers every five years. Thus economists, like climate scientists, would seek to claim a consensus view of what “every mainstream economist believes.”

The point is, it doesn’t matter what you are talking about, consensus is not always a good thing. It is being misused with climate science and can be misused in other areas to usurp control for nefarious purposes.

An independent climate science think tank produces evidence from a leading infrared thermometer manufacturer proving that climatologists were mistakenly taking incorrect readings of atmospheric temperatures. Latest findings are set to trigger a paradigm shift in climate science.

Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.

Now a world-leading manufacturer of these high-tech instruments, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.

One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.

In 2010 Siddons and his colleagues debated the GHE issue with fellow global warming skeptic, and GHE believer, Dr. Roy Spencer. An unmoved Spencer posted the following on his blog (August 8, 2010 at 6:38 AM):

“The IR thermometer DOES see the atmosphere immediately in front of it, as well as most of the rest of the atmosphere along its line of sight… The final calibrated brightness temperature can be roughly considered to be the weighted average temperature of all of those layers.”

“Whereas the early IRT’s required a broad spectral band of IR [infrared] to obtain a workable detector output, modern IRT’s routinely have spectral responses of only one micron.” [1.].

The company explains why this is so:

“instruments necessarily need to have this selective and narrow spectral response to allow the IR thermometer to see through atmospheric or other interference.”

MIC goes further to advise that IRT’s are routinely calibrated for selective spectral responses of only 8-14 microns [2.]. The company says IRT’s are set to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements. This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.”

“For an IR thermometer sensitive to wavelengths from, say, 8 to 14 microns, you could plot a weighting function profile that shows the proportions of IR energy being received from different altitudes.”

Clearly, from the above statement Spencer has identified a spectral range in which his instrument CANNOT detect any IR energy from CO2 or water vapor, thus making any such “plot” pointless and absurd for the purpose he is trying to prove.

Thus Siddons ably demonstrates that when Spencer was pointing his IRT at the sky he was deluding himself that he was measuring the energy of ‘greenhouse gases.’ Thus Spencer’s erroneous assumption that infrared thermometers prove the existence of ‘back radiation’ coming from carbon dioxide (CO2) is refuted.

“The records would depend on the altitude of those globules. For example, a globule radiating 60 W/m^2 would be at 30 km in altitude; globules at surface level, which start rising and are very hot because they are in contact with the hotter surface, would emit around 92 W/m^2, etc.”

“removes this dangerous weapon from the Sky Dragons’ toolbox once and for all.”

Olson, along with Siddons, Nahle and Canadian astrophysicist, Joseph Postma have been collaborating with two dozen other well-qualified experts for over a year on this international project. The teams are addressing in great detail the flaws of the greenhouse gas effect, a cornerstone of the science of the discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Fatal False Assumption of Greenhouse Gas Effect Believers

But Spencer can be forgiven for his false assumptions because he is in very large company; almost all climatologists have fallen into the same trap. To his great credit, Spencer is one of the few such experts willing to even debating the existence of a GHE.

Astrophysicist, Joe Postma chips in to explain that:

“When pointed horizontally, the IRT sensor will report the ambient air temperature. When pointed vertically, it gives a reading for the integrated average temperature of the vertical air-column, weighted for optical depth “penetration” of the instrument.”

Postma advises us:

“So think about that. If ANY parcel of air emitted the full intensity of the Stefan-Boltzman Equation, then when that sensor was pointed straight up, it STILL HAD a cubic meter of warm, ground-temperature air directly above it, just like it did when it was pointing horizontally.”

The air has to emit SOME radiation though, because any ensemble of particles with a temperature higher than absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) emits thermal radiation.

Siddons, Postma, Nahle and their Slayers think tank colleagues have a point; Mikron Instrument Company Inc. has thrown into the mix an important caveat for consideration for those who misinterpret the readings from IR thermometers.

So it is the company that builds IR thermometers that destroys another cornerstone of the religion of the ‘greenhouse gas effect.’

For further compelling examples of how the indomitable ‘Slayers’ have debunked IPCC junk science visit here.

One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.” A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises.

Acceptance of the “well-mixed gas” concept is a key requirement for those who choose to believe in the so-called greenhouse gas effect. A rising group of skeptic scientists have put the “well-mixed gas” hypothesis under the microscope and shown it contradicts not only satellite data by also measurements obtained in standard laboratory experiments.

Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.

Ball is prominent among the “Slayers” group of skeptics and has been forthright in denouncing the IPCC claims; “I think a major false assumption is that CO2 is evenly distributed regardless of its function.“

School Children Prove Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air

Dr. Ball and his colleagues appear to be winning converts with their hard-nosed re-examination of the standard myths of climate science and this latest issue is probably one of the easiest for non-scientists to comprehend.

Indeed, even high school children are taught the basic fact that gravity causes objects heavier than air to fall to the ground. And that is precisely what CO2 is – this miniscule trace gas (just a very tiny 0.04% of atmosphere) is heavy and is soon down and out as shown by a simple school lab experiment.

Or, we can look at it another way to make these technical Physics relationships easy. This is because scientists refer to ratios based on common standards. Rather than refer to unit volumes and masses, scientists use the concept of Specific Gravity (SG). Giving standard air a value of 1.0 then the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). [1.]

CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls.

This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth. Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels. Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration. Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’

It is only if we buy into the IPCC’s “well mixed gas” fallacy that climate extremists can then proceed to dupe us further with their next claim; that this so-called “well mixed” CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun.

The cornerstone of the IPCC claims since 1988 is that “trapped” CO2 adds heat because it is a direct consequence of another dubious and unscientific mechanism they call “back radiation.” In no law of science will you have read of the term “back radiation.” It is a speculative and unphysical concept and is the biggest lie woven into the falsity of what is widely known as the greenhouse gas effect.

Professor Nasif Nahle, a recent addition to the Slayers team, has proven that application of standard gas equations reveal that, if it were real, any “trapping” effect of the IPCC’s “back radiation” could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists. [2.]

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.

Change in CO2 Temperature Is NOT Change in Atmospheric Temp

When applying the GHE formula devised by Arrhenius, IPCC scientists appear to have forgotten that we must consider the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the proportion of the whole mixture of gases.

Even if Arrhenius was right about the GHE any change of temperature obtained from his formula is exclusively a change of temperature of the mass of carbon dioxide, not of the atmosphere.

The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud.

Nahle poses this question for GHE believers:

“Is the atmosphere composed only of carbon dioxide? Why calculate the change of temperature of a mass of carbon dioxide and then after say it is the change of temperature of this trace gas that now becomes the temperature of the whole Earth?”

Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma similarly comments:

“No one seems to have realized that any purported increase in temperature of CO2 due to CO2 absorption is APPLIED TO CO2, not the whole danged atmosphere! Again, just a slight tweak in comprehending the reality makes a whole paradigm of difference.”

NASA Data Confirms CO2 Not a Well Mixed Gas

Professor Nahle and his colleagues insist that in addition to the above facts the proven varying density of atmospheric CO2 also needs to be taken into account to show how IPCC scientists are guilty of the greatest scientific swindle ever perpetrated.

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

NASA’s diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn’t a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.

Groundbreaking Science Trumps IPCC Junk Claims

Both Postma and Nahle have recently published groundbreaking papers discrediting the GHE. Professor Nahle analyzed the thermal properties of carbon dioxide, exclusively, and found that 0.3 °C would be the change of temperature of CO2, also exclusively, not of the whole atmosphere. Nasif pointedly observes:

“Such change of temperature would not affect in absolute the whole mixture of gas because of the thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide.”

Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.

Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”

Sources:

[1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.

[2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).

Toronto Wind Action (TWA), The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) and the North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) all trumpet a new scientific breakthrough vindicating windfarm victims worldwide.

In a press release (July 25, 2011) TWA, EPAW and NA-PAW lament the loss of an Ontario court ruling but are spinning with joy at the news of an important scientific breakthrough that may help their quest to bring a halt to further growth in wind turbine siting and development.

‘No Serious Harm to Human Health,’ says Legal Ruling

Campaigners gave their upbeat reaction after a disappointing Canadian Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) decision that the Kent Breeze wind farm project in Ontario may proceed because there will be no “serious” harm to human health. In their joint press statement the anti-wind turbine campaigners responded,

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.

The source, who fears losing his position if identified reveals, “The fact is for years we have been watching the magnetic fields wane both here on Earth and on the Sun.”

But NASA has conspired with advocates of the man-made global warming cult to ‘hide the decline’ which would make a mockery of their trumped claims mankind has created a new and warmer Anthropocene Climatic period.

Continued Rate of Cooling to Cause New Ice Age

Our nameless expert explains that since the 1990’s and into the 21st century magnetic fields have dropped by about 50 gauss per year. No one denies that in itself, this is not a remarkable drop if it were to be soon reversed. However, if such a trend continues for a decade or more then the fears of solar scientists that we are entering a new Ice Age will be realized with potentially devastating consequences for life of Earth.

The unidentified insider explains that one of the doomsayers guilty of propping up the false global warming story and who has now been forced into an embarrassing recant is NASA’s solar physicist, David Hathaway. Hathaway had claimed that Solar Cycle 24 would be strong but it wasn’t. But like many scientists wedded to the doomsaying cult it was not until recently that Hathaway felt forced to drop the bar and suggest that Solar Cycle 24 may be weak and not the 50 percent stronger he had suggested in 2006.

Now Hathaway drops the bar further admitting that Solar Cycle 25 will be even weaker. So what does prolonged weak sunspot activity mean? Well, look no further than the last long period of low sunspot activity when the Earth suffered the misery of the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age and devastating episodes of famine and bad harvests swept Europe. The climate became so cold that winter Frost Fairs were held on the thick ice that formed over the River Thames in London, England.

With no rises in global temperatures since 1998 and global cooling this century, the wider scientific community is discovering that a clique of self-serving climatologists have deliberately misinterpreted data from the Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt.

Weakest Solar Cycle in Centuries

Government funded researchers were first caught out by the double peaked nature of Solar Cycle 23. They did not consider the double minimum we are currently in that will take us into the weakest Solar Cycle in centuries putting us into potentially ice age territory.

The unnamed whistleblower says, “Within a few years time the magnetic field will be too weak to support any sunspots on the face of the Sun.”

Sunspots form only when the magnetic field is stronger than 1500 gauss.

Gravy train government researchers persisting in ignoring the facts are fast losing their credibility. These ‘scientists’ have turned a blind eye to important historical works on the Sun such as that by Pieter Zeeman who, back in the 19th century gave us “Zeeman splitting.”

Our whistleblower warns, “this brings us to how sunspots have been counted over the last few years and the counting of areas that would not have been seen much less counted in the past. It is entirely possible that these short-lived micro sunspots have shown up at every Solar Minimum and they were not seen so they were not counted. But that does not mean they were not there during periods such as the Maunder Minimum.”

Sadly, revisionists within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have succeeded for two decades in re-writing the Earth’s temperature records. They have also succeeded in obscuring the proven key role the Sun plays, as witnessed by Judithgate whereby the 2007 IPCC Report relies on the work of ONE biased solar scientist, Judith Lean who positively ‘reviewed’ her own work.

Inconvenient Sunspots Shame NASA

The IPCC’s fraud with Judithgate is now matched by what is currently taking place behind closed doors. Our anonymous friend gives us the scoop on some of NASA’s latest shenanigans:

“The first example is the current fourth place record for total blank days in the period from July to September 2008, in which for 52 days just one micro sunspot appeared. Many in the science community were not at all to happy this was recorded as such because the area did not last 24 hours [a minimum requirement] and looked to many solar experts as nothing more than an aggravated pore.”

But still the doomsayer fraternity counted it.

“A second example is the current fifth place record for total blank days which is the 51-day day period from July to August 2009.”

Both of these blank periods have occurred in the current solar cycle and both were only days away from taking third place in all time spotless sun days since modern records began back in 1850. They were conveniently ‘stopped’ by counting areas that prior to the 21st century would have not been counted as true sunspots – a clear case of cherry-picking.

Now here is the kicker some of you amateur solar watchers may or may not know about. “In early July 2009 we had the best defined sunspot of this cycle to date (# 1024). But you probably won’t realize there was a second area that formed that month lasting less than one day and that was catalogued as # 15 on July 23rd 2009.”

My anonymous source tells me the reason it was not counted was because solar experts were expecting more sunspot activity and because the fact this area belonged to Solar Cycle 23.

“Now fast forward to August 31st 2009 and facing the fact that we were now only days from taking out the third place in all time blank periods. A micro sunspot appears and also lasts less than 24 hours. It got numbered right away but before September 1st was finished the spot was gone lasting less than 24 hours.”

Thus deliberate false accounting distorted the record books. Our faceless insider friend laments, “In the future solar scientists will look back on this period just as we now look back at the Persecution of Galileo.”

With the IPCC and NASA now discredited, the records need to be made public with all those responsible for doctoring the data brought to account; while independent and principled researchers should he heard without fear of recrimination.

For anyone interested in actual Independent Solar Research rather than the discredited hype about man-made global warming more information may be found here.

Rate this:

Comments Off on Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

Ultra-green Denmark admits it has no idea what to with a worrisome mountain of old and broken wind turbine blades. The composite material can’t be recycled.

In a story from Denmark’s leading business newspaper Dagbladet Børsen (June 10, 2011) experts warn, “As the wind becomes a central part of energy supply, a huge waste problem is growing with similar speed.”

Windy Scandinavia has hit this unanticipated hurdle because a key material in constructing wind turbines, carbon fiber composite, cannot be recycled and is fast filling landfills or else is being burned creating toxic emissions. The report admits, “a gigantic mountain of scrap blades is building up.”

Tom Løgstrup Andersen from Risø DTU, a senior development engineer who has spent two decades researching fiberglass composites admits, “When a turbine is operating, it produces green energy. But when it is worn, it is suddenly a problem. There exists no concrete solution to reusing blades from wind turbines.”

Poor Planning, Poor Technology Defeats Renewables Goal

Denmark has 6,000 wind turbines serving a population of 5.3 million and when the wind conditions are just right wind produces around 19 percent of its electricity. Yet despite huge financial investment no conventional power plant has yet been shut down while Danish electricity costs to consumers are the highest in Europe, according to research by energy researcher, Dr. Vic Mason.

Turbine blades routinely exceed 60 meters in length and nearly all are manufactured from thermoset plastics that cannot be recycled once their useful life has expired. The special plastic is the only material currently known that meets reliability standards due to their relatively high strength and low weight properties.

Dr. Mason cites evidence that many small turbines have collapsed in close proximity to human dwellings [1; 2; 3], and recently two big Danish wind turbines lost blades and scattered sharp pieces of glass fiber up to 500 meters from the tower base in high winds [4.]. Similar events have also been reported in Sweden, northern England and Scotland [5.]. Blade failure can be lethal and catastrophic as shown by video footage.

Indeed, the death toll from wind turbines in recent decades is huge when compared with nuclear accidents. In 2008 in the U.S. alone there were41 worker fatalitiesand 16 non-worker deaths.

As the film shows, ironically, in high winds the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Carbon fiber has been the material of choice because of lightness and efficiency of construction. But the stress damage to fiber composites is poorly understood to begin with and wear and tear on blades can be considerable.

Also, over time a build-up of dead bugs, plus other wear and tear reduces the power generated by 20 to 30 percent. So for safety and efficiency the blades must be regularly replaced.

Europe Fears Toxic Waste Wind Turbine Mountain

Currently the global market for wind turbine blade is growing at over 10 percent growth per annum and worth around US$2 billion a year. But shortsighted thinking has led to a situation where the greatest challenge now is to develop a profitable and safe recycling process for the unwanted carbon fiber blades.

Since 2004, most European Union (EU) member states passed laws forbidding landfill disposal of carbon fiber composites. Further, incineration of plastics is discouraged because of the potential release of toxic byproducts.

Professor Henning Albers from the Institut für Umwelt und Biotechnik, Hochschule Bremen, calculates that at current growth rates by 2034, there will be a mountain of 225,000 tonnes of unwanted rotor blade material waste. That’s a lot of landfill!

Investors Bail out of Renewables Sector

The aircraft industry, a long-time user of composite plastics has, itself, had little success in solving the landfill problem. The aviation industry has tried to minimize landfill tipping by grinding down the thermoset composites into granules for use as filler materials (e.g., in asphalt). But there isn’t a commercial market for such waste.

A report by Compositesworld.com agrees, “a major cost barrier in composites recycling is that collected composite waste must be sorted — one of the more labor-intensive aspects of conventional recycling processes.”

Summing up the lack of forward planning about wind turbines physicists and environmental activist, John Droz, jr, warns, “just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source.”